Sen, santorum; “life begins at conception.”

[SillyWabbit]

I have said it before and I will say it again: human life begins at conception. I won't play with words. Kill the child or not?
Simple, is it not?

Simple for some, but you always have those who like to complicate things.

People do not want to admit to what they're doing.
Murder
That's the complication.

 

[edthecynic]

Personal beliefs have everything to do with politics.

And life does begin at conception. Because that's when a new lifeform is formed and can be identified as separate from his/her parents.

You must be a higher authority than God who says life begins with the first breath!

Gen 2: 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Wow! What a way to twist scripture.

This is NOT saying that life begins with the first breath, only that the FIRST life did. When God created man from the dust, the first breath that God breathed into the man gave the creation life. The very first man is who this was referring to. It is not referring to the unborn. This human was not developed in the womb. The unborn ARE developed in the womb.

Gen 25:21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
Gen 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
Luk 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
Luk 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Luk 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

If life starts at the first breath as you say, then how would the baby in Elisabeth's womb leap for joy? And how would you explain how the twins in Rebekah's womb could struggle with each other if they had no life?

You (or your wife) have never had a baby, have you? The unborn baby starts to move around in the womb at 7 or 8 weeks of pregnancy. If there were no life before the first breath, then there would be no movement before hand.

Obviously those passages cannot be taken literally! and just because a fetus moves in the womb, that does not mean it is a "living soul" as the bible defines.

Who the hell are YOU to overrule God?

 

[Caroljo]

You must be a higher authority than God who says life begins with the first breath!

Gen 2: 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Wow! What a way to twist scripture.

This is NOT saying that life begins with the first breath, only that the FIRST life did. When God created man from the dust, the first breath that God breathed into the man gave the creation life. The very first man is who this was referring to. It is not referring to the unborn. This human was not developed in the womb. The unborn ARE developed in the womb.

Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
Luk 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
Luk 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Luk 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

If life starts at the first breath as you say, then how would the baby in Elisabeth's womb leap for joy? And how would you explain how the twins in Rebekah's womb could struggle with each other if they had no life?

You (or your wife) have never had a baby, have you? The unborn baby starts to move around in the womb at 7 or 8 weeks of pregnancy. If there were no life before the first breath, then there would be no movement before hand.

Obviously those passages cannot be taken literally! and just because a fetus moves in the womb, that does not mean it is a "living soul" as the bible defines.

Who the hell are YOU to overrule God?

why would the babe leap in the womb for JOY if it had no soul? How can a lump of nothing have feeling of joy or any other emotion? nobody overruled God, He said this Himself....

 

[edthecynic]

Wow! What a way to twist scripture.

This is NOT saying that life begins with the first breath, only that the FIRST life did. When God created man from the dust, the first breath that God breathed into the man gave the creation life. The very first man is who this was referring to. It is not referring to the unborn. This human was not developed in the womb. The unborn ARE developed in the womb.

If life starts at the first breath as you say, then how would the baby in Elisabeth's womb leap for joy? And how would you explain how the twins in Rebekah's womb could struggle with each other if they had no life?

You (or your wife) have never had a baby, have you? The unborn baby starts to move around in the womb at 7 or 8 weeks of pregnancy. If there were no life before the first breath, then there would be no movement before hand.

Obviously those passages cannot be taken literally! and just because a fetus moves in the womb, that does not mean it is a "living soul" as the bible defines.

Who the hell are YOU to overrule God?

why would the babe leap in the womb for JOY if it had no soul? How can a lump of nothing have feeling of joy or any other emotion? nobody overruled God, He said this Himself....

Well, since there isn't enough room in the womb to LEAP anywhere, nothing in that passage can be taken literally.

 

[SillyWabbit]

Obviously those passages cannot be taken literally! and just because a fetus moves in the womb, that does not mean it is a "living soul" as the bible defines.

Who the hell are YOU to overrule God?

why would the babe leap in the womb for JOY if it had no soul? How can a lump of nothing have feeling of joy or any other emotion? nobody overruled God, He said this Himself....

Well, since there isn't enough room in the womb to LEAP anywhere, nothing in that passage can be taken literally.

There's enough room for LIFE in the womb.
Yes?
Walk around and breathe a little: You're already here.



Give someone else a chance.



or
Kill them if you wish.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Wow! What a way to twist scripture.

This is NOT saying that life begins with the first breath, only that the FIRST life did. When God created man from the dust, the first breath that God breathed into the man gave the creation life. The very first man is who this was referring to. It is not referring to the unborn. This human was not developed in the womb. The unborn ARE developed in the womb.

If life starts at the first breath as you say, then how would the baby in Elisabeth's womb leap for joy? And how would you explain how the twins in Rebekah's womb could struggle with each other if they had no life?

You (or your wife) have never had a baby, have you? The unborn baby starts to move around in the womb at 7 or 8 weeks of pregnancy. If there were no life before the first breath, then there would be no movement before hand.

Obviously those passages cannot be taken literally! and just because a fetus moves in the womb, that does not mean it is a "living soul" as the bible defines.

Who the hell are YOU to overrule God?

why would the babe leap in the womb for JOY if it had no soul? How can a lump of nothing have feeling of joy or any other emotion? nobody overruled God, He said this Himself....

Actually, the question is HOW did the mother know it was joy and not something else? Hunger? Excitement? Fear? Pain? All those are possibles as well, because unless the mother has a hard wired telepathic connection with the fetus, she doesn't know.

Maybe because SHE was happy about the child, she transferred her feeling of joy onto the baby.

And.........FWIW.........no. Life DOESN'T begin at conception, it's just that ultra-conservative religious fanatics who want to impose their lifestyle on the rest of us, such as yourself that believe that.

Nope, I don't consider it "human" until it develops a brain and nervous system. Why? Because our brains, as well as the intellect and emotions that it contains, is what makes us uniquely "human".

 

[Wingsofwind]

You must be a higher authority than God who says life begins with the first breath!

Gen 2: 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Wow! What a way to twist scripture.

This is NOT saying that life begins with the first breath, only that the FIRST life did. When God created man from the dust, the first breath that God breathed into the man gave the creation life. The very first man is who this was referring to. It is not referring to the unborn. This human was not developed in the womb. The unborn ARE developed in the womb.

Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
Luk 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
Luk 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Luk 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

If life starts at the first breath as you say, then how would the baby in Elisabeth's womb leap for joy? And how would you explain how the twins in Rebekah's womb could struggle with each other if they had no life?

You (or your wife) have never had a baby, have you? The unborn baby starts to move around in the womb at 7 or 8 weeks of pregnancy. If there were no life before the first breath, then there would be no movement before hand.

Obviously those passages cannot be taken literally! and just because a fetus moves in the womb, that does not mean it is a "living soul" as the bible defines.

Who the hell are YOU to overrule God?

Obviously, you like to twist scripture to fit YOUR agenda.

 

[Wingsofwind]

Obviously those passages cannot be taken literally! and just because a fetus moves in the womb, that does not mean it is a "living soul" as the bible defines.

Who the hell are YOU to overrule God?

why would the babe leap in the womb for JOY if it had no soul? How can a lump of nothing have feeling of joy or any other emotion? nobody overruled God, He said this Himself....

Well, since there isn't enough room in the womb to LEAP anywhere, nothing in that passage can be taken literally.

Yes, just throw out a part of the Bible just because you do not understand it.

You can leap or jump without having much room. If you are frightened, you jump. Not a litteral jump into the air, but your body jumps or moves quickly without a large range of motion.

Leaped:
G4640
σκιρτάω
skirtaō
skeer-tah'-o
Akin to σκαίρω skairō (to skip); to jump, that is, sympathetically move (as the quickening of a fetus): - leap (for joy).

 

[Wingsofwind]

Obviously those passages cannot be taken literally! and just because a fetus moves in the womb, that does not mean it is a "living soul" as the bible defines.

Who the hell are YOU to overrule God?

why would the babe leap in the womb for JOY if it had no soul? How can a lump of nothing have feeling of joy or any other emotion? nobody overruled God, He said this Himself....

Actually, the question is HOW did the mother know it was joy and not something else? Hunger? Excitement? Fear? Pain? All those are possibles as well, because unless the mother has a hard wired telepathic connection with the fetus, she doesn't know.

Maybe because SHE was happy about the child, she transferred her feeling of joy onto the baby.

And.........FWIW.........no. Life DOESN'T begin at conception, it's just that ultra-conservative religious fanatics who want to impose their lifestyle on the rest of us, such as yourself that believe that.

Nope, I don't consider it "human" until it develops a brain and nervous system. Why? Because our brains, as well as the intellect and emotions that it contains, is what makes us uniquely "human".

Animals have brains, emotions, and some intellect. And not all humans have intellect, but they are still human. What makes a human a human is the fact that their development was from other humans. Their genetic makeup is what makes them human.

One person can consider a one a human only when it is born, as edthecynic does. And one can believe it is at conception as I do. And then there are those like you that think it is when it develops a certain part of the human body. What YOU consider 'human' does not mean that it is the truth.

 

[FA_Q2]

And.........FWIW.........no. Life DOESN'T begin at conception, it's just that ultra-conservative religious fanatics who want to impose their lifestyle on the rest of us, such as yourself that believe that.

No, anyone that has a brain knows that life begins at conception. You have to have a warped view of the definition of life in order to define the moment of conception as non-life. It CLEARLY fits the requirements. A fly is also alive as is a jellyfish even though it lacks a central nervous system. A tree is alive. At the moment of conception, there is a unique human life in the womb by definition. Clouding it by changing the meaning of words is dishonest. The debate lies at the point that life’s right to live supersedes the right of a woman over the use of her body. You could say that only “ultra-conservative religious fanatics” believe that right is granted immediately and that would be much close to the truth than denying it was a life to begin with. Most believe it lies somewhere in the second Trimester. VERY few are barbaric enough to believe that the right of the new life never supersedes that of the woman.

 

[edthecynic]

And.........FWIW.........no. Life DOESN'T begin at conception, it's just that ultra-conservative religious fanatics who want to impose their lifestyle on the rest of us, such as yourself that believe that.

No, anyone that has a brain knows that life begins at conception. You have to have a warped view of the definition of life in order to define the moment of conception as non-life. It CLEARLY fits the requirements. A fly is also alive as is a jellyfish even though it lacks a central nervous system. A tree is alive. At the moment of conception, there is a unique human life in the womb by definition. Clouding it by changing the meaning of words is dishonest. The debate lies at the point that life’s right to live supersedes the right of a woman over the use of her body. You could say that only “ultra-conservative religious fanatics” believe that right is granted immediately and that would be much close to the truth than denying it was a life to begin with. Most believe it lies somewhere in the second Trimester. VERY few are barbaric enough to believe that the right of the new life never supersedes that of the woman.

At the moment BEFORE conception there is a unique human living sperm and a unique human living egg in the womb, so therefore life begins BEFORE conception by your "logic."

 

[FA_Q2]

And.........FWIW.........no. Life DOESN'T begin at conception, it's just that ultra-conservative religious fanatics who want to impose their lifestyle on the rest of us, such as yourself that believe that.

No, anyone that has a brain knows that life begins at conception. You have to have a warped view of the definition of life in order to define the moment of conception as non-life. It CLEARLY fits the requirements. A fly is also alive as is a jellyfish even though it lacks a central nervous system. A tree is alive. At the moment of conception, there is a unique human life in the womb by definition. Clouding it by changing the meaning of words is dishonest. The debate lies at the point that life’s right to live supersedes the right of a woman over the use of her body. You could say that only “ultra-conservative religious fanatics” believe that right is granted immediately and that would be much close to the truth than denying it was a life to begin with. Most believe it lies somewhere in the second Trimester. VERY few are barbaric enough to believe that the right of the new life never supersedes that of the woman.

At the moment BEFORE conception there is a unique human living sperm and a unique human living egg in the womb, so therefore life begins BEFORE conception by your "logic."

Don’t try and doge the simple DEFINITIONS of words. No, they are not ‘human’ life before conception. In fact, the sperm and egg do not really fit the definition for life before combination either. Neither grows, replicates or consumes. They are manufactured by the body as a delivery system. When combined, they form an actual, distinct human with a distinct DNA signature capable of doing all the aforementioned.

 

[wolf_22]

I think we should all listen to his opinion - including the one that okay-ed a form of abortion for his wife but would deny it to all other women.

great opinion!

 

[edthecynic]

No, anyone that has a brain knows that life begins at conception. You have to have a warped view of the definition of life in order to define the moment of conception as non-life. It CLEARLY fits the requirements. A fly is also alive as is a jellyfish even though it lacks a central nervous system. A tree is alive. At the moment of conception, there is a unique human life in the womb by definition. Clouding it by changing the meaning of words is dishonest. The debate lies at the point that life’s right to live supersedes the right of a woman over the use of her body. You could say that only “ultra-conservative religious fanatics” believe that right is granted immediately and that would be much close to the truth than denying it was a life to begin with. Most believe it lies somewhere in the second Trimester. VERY few are barbaric enough to believe that the right of the new life never supersedes that of the woman.

At the moment BEFORE conception there is a unique human living sperm and a unique human living egg in the womb, so therefore life begins BEFORE conception by your "logic."

Don’t try and doge the simple DEFINITIONS of words. No, they are not ‘human’ life before conception. In fact, the sperm and egg do not really fit the definition for life before combination either. Neither grows, replicates or consumes. They are manufactured by the body as a delivery system. When combined, they form an actual, distinct human with a distinct DNA signature capable of doing all the aforementioned.

So you are saying that a DEAD/inert human sperm and a DEAD/inert human egg suddenly come to life when they unite in the womb.

 

[FA_Q2]

At the moment BEFORE conception there is a unique human living sperm and a unique human living egg in the womb, so therefore life begins BEFORE conception by your "logic."

Don’t try and doge the simple DEFINITIONS of words. No, they are not ‘human’ life before conception. In fact, the sperm and egg do not really fit the definition for life before combination either. Neither grows, replicates or consumes. They are manufactured by the body as a delivery system. When combined, they form an actual, distinct human with a distinct DNA signature capable of doing all the aforementioned.

So you are saying that a DEAD/inert human sperm and a DEAD/inert human egg suddenly come to life when they unite in the womb.

Wow, you’re a moron. They do not fit the definition of life, period. Got something other than mindless, asinine assertions with a cuckoo smiley? You are looking like an idiot like that.

2 cells, not living organisms, come together and make a living organism. Separate and whole in its own right that fits the complete definition of a living thing. By claiming that it is not life you are simply trying to avoid facing the FACT that abortion is killing a living, unique person. I am pro-choice with proper limitations and I can acknowledge the reality. Why is it so difficult for you to come to terms with the facts?

 

[edthecynic]

Don’t try and doge the simple DEFINITIONS of words. No, they are not ‘human’ life before conception. In fact, the sperm and egg do not really fit the definition for life before combination either. Neither grows, replicates or consumes. They are manufactured by the body as a delivery system. When combined, they form an actual, distinct human with a distinct DNA signature capable of doing all the aforementioned.

So you are saying that a DEAD/inert human sperm and a DEAD/inert human egg suddenly come to life when they unite in the womb.

Wow, you’re a moron. They do not fit the definition of life, period. Got something other than mindless, asinine assertions with a cuckoo smiley? You are looking like an idiot like that.

2 cells, not living organisms, come together and make a living organism. Separate and whole in its own right that fits the complete definition of a living thing. By claiming that it is not life you are simply trying to avoid facing the FACT that abortion is killing a living, unique person. I am pro-choice with proper limitations and I can acknowledge the reality. Why is it so difficult for you to come to terms with the facts?

2 living cells come together to make 1 living cell. If the 2 cells are not alive then life is coming from non life. Creationists tell us that is impossible.

 

[FA_Q2]

So you are saying that a DEAD/inert human sperm and a DEAD/inert human egg suddenly come to life when they unite in the womb.

Wow, you’re a moron. They do not fit the definition of life, period. Got something other than mindless, asinine assertions with a cuckoo smiley? You are looking like an idiot like that.

2 cells, not living organisms, come together and make a living organism. Separate and whole in its own right that fits the complete definition of a living thing. By claiming that it is not life you are simply trying to avoid facing the FACT that abortion is killing a living, unique person. I am pro-choice with proper limitations and I can acknowledge the reality. Why is it so difficult for you to come to terms with the facts?

2 living cells come together to make 1 living cell. If the 2 cells are not alive then life is coming from non life. Creationists tell us that is impossible.

Who the hell said anything about creationists? You are refusing to look at the simple facts that are directly in front of you. What I have stated is FACT, move the **** past it.

By the way, the cells are part of something alive, not a living thing in their own right. Is a molecule of carbon alive? NO, yet it is a part of ALL living things. Stop being stupid on purpose. You could not fond the on switch on your computer of you really are this obtuse.

 

[edthecynic]

Wow, you’re a moron. They do not fit the definition of life, period. Got something other than mindless, asinine assertions with a cuckoo smiley? You are looking like an idiot like that.

2 cells, not living organisms, come together and make a living organism. Separate and whole in its own right that fits the complete definition of a living thing. By claiming that it is not life you are simply trying to avoid facing the FACT that abortion is killing a living, unique person. I am pro-choice with proper limitations and I can acknowledge the reality. Why is it so difficult for you to come to terms with the facts?

2 living cells come together to make 1 living cell. If the 2 cells are not alive then life is coming from non life. Creationists tell us that is impossible.

Who the hell said anything about creationists? You are refusing to look at the simple facts that are directly in front of you. What I have stated is FACT, move the **** past it.

By the way, the cells are part of something alive, not a living thing in their own right. Is a molecule of carbon alive? NO, yet it is a part of ALL living things. Stop being stupid on purpose. You could not fond the on switch on your computer of you really are this obtuse.

So you admit that a blastocyst is not a living thing in its own right.
Thank you!

 

[FA_Q2]

2 living cells come together to make 1 living cell. If the 2 cells are not alive then life is coming from non life. Creationists tell us that is impossible.

Who the hell said anything about creationists? You are refusing to look at the simple facts that are directly in front of you. What I have stated is FACT, move the **** past it.

By the way, the cells are part of something alive, not a living thing in their own right. Is a molecule of carbon alive? NO, yet it is a part of ALL living things. Stop being stupid on purpose. You could not fond the on switch on your computer of you really are this obtuse.

So you admit that a blastocyst is not a living thing in its own right.
Thank you!

No, actually I did not. You continually misconstrue facts, change the basic meanings or words and have yet to contribute one damn thing whatsoever. Come back when you have grown a brain.

 

[edthecynic]

Who the hell said anything about creationists? You are refusing to look at the simple facts that are directly in front of you. What I have stated is FACT, move the **** past it.

By the way, the cells are part of something alive, not a living thing in their own right. Is a molecule of carbon alive? NO, yet it is a part of ALL living things. Stop being stupid on purpose. You could not fond the on switch on your computer of you really are this obtuse.

So you admit that a blastocyst is not a living thing in its own right.
Thank you!

No, actually I did not. You continually misconstrue facts, change the basic meanings or words and have yet to contribute one damn thing whatsoever. Come back when you have grown a brain.

A blastocyst is cells that are part of something alive but not able to live in their own right, what's the difference?